coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1961 respectively and live in Yerevan.
7.  The applicants and a third person jointly owned a flat which measured 55.7 sq. m. and was situated at 25 Byuzand Street, Yerevan.
8.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the Kentron District of Yerevan to be taken for State needs for town-planning purposes, having a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones. A special body, the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency (hereafter, the Agency) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects.
9.  On 7 September 2004 the applicants’ flat was valued upon the request of the Agency by a valuation organisation. The market value of the flat was estimated at 20,080 United States dollars (USD).
10.  In January 2005 the Agency informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 20,080. An additional sum of USD 14,734.70 was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within five days.
11.  The applicants did not accept the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered.
12.  On 20 January 2005 the Agency lodged a claim against the applicant Sedrak Baghdasaryan, seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of the flat in question for State needs and to have him, and the others residing in the flat, evicted.
13.  On 10 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the Agency’s claim, ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of USD 20,080.
14.  On 24 March 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal.
15.  On 17 May 2005 the Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal.
16.  On 31 May 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law in which they argued, inter alia, that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by Article 28 of the Constitution and that there was no public interest in depriving them of their property.
17.  On 7 July 2005 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal.
18.  On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.
5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lived in Aistersheim.
6.  The applicant owned a landholding of some 150 hectares, which is an approved hunting ground (Eigenjagd). According to the Upper Austrian Hunting Act (Oberösterreichisches Jagdgesetz), every six years, the District Authority has to establish the boundaries of the Upper Austrian hunting grounds. In this respect, requests may be filed by landowners to have adjacent land allocated to their hunting grounds where, for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of hunting rights, boundaries need readjustment (Arrondierungsantrag). On 29 September 2004 the applicant filed such a request for readjustment in respect of the next six years’ hunting period, i.e. from April 2005 to March 2011.
7.  On 28 December 2004 the Grieskirchen District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) partly granted the applicant’s request and assigned specified plots of third persons to the applicant’s hunting grounds, but dismissed her request concerning some other parcels of land.
8.  On 21 October 2005 the Upper Austria Regional Government (Landesregierung) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).
9.  On 15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint due to lack of prospects of success and referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 18 April 2006. On 2 May 2006 the Administrative Court requested the applicant to complement the complaint. The applicant submitted her additional comments on 21 June 2006 and requested an oral hearing. On 31 August 2006 the Upper Austria Regional Government submitted its additional comments to the Administrative Court.
10.  On 29 September 2008, after having held an oral hearing on the same day, the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint as unfounded. That decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 13 October 2008.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rinschnach. The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Linz.
5.  In 1997 the Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht Wels, “the Regional Court”) instituted preliminary investigations (Vorerhebungen) against the two applicants and several other persons on account of the suspicion of aggravated fraud (schwerer gewerbsmässiger Betrug) by having set up and managed an internationally operated gambling system which was based on a pyramid scheme.
6.  On 19 January 1999 the Regional Court decided that the proceedings against the applicants were to be separated from those of the co-suspects to avoid delays.
7.  On 9 December 1997 the Regional Court issued an international arrest warrant (Steckbrief) in respect of the first applicant. He was in detention on remand from 26 to 27 May 1998.
8.  On 18 February 2008 the first applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Courts Act (Fristsetzungsantrag). The Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht, “the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the request on 11 September 2008, stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts, not the Public Prosecutor.
9.  On 2 May 2013 the Regional Court acquitted the first applicant of all charges. The decision was served on his counsel on 15 October 2013.
10.  On 18 April 1997 the Regional Court issued an international arrest warrant in respect of the second applicant. He was in detention on remand from 22 May 1997 until 6 August 1999.
11.  On 12 April 2002 the preliminary investigations against the second applicant were closed and the file was transferred to the Wels Public Prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft, “the Public Prosecutor”) for further processing. However, no indictment was brought against him.
12.  On 4 December 2007 the second applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Courts Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request on 11 September 2008, stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts, not the Public Prosecutor.
13.  On 2 April 2010 the Public Prosecutor brought an indictment against the second applicant. The second applicant lodged an appeal against the indictment and a motion requesting the discontinuation of the proceedings. On 28 February 2011 the Court of Appeal rejected the indictment, but did not discontinue the proceedings.
14.  On 13 October 2011 the Public Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against the second applicant.
6.  The applicants were born in 1946, 1954 and 1985 respectively and live in Yerevan.
7.  The applicants jointly owned a flat which measured 44.1 sq. m. and was situated at 25 Byuzand Street, Yerevan.
8.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the Kentron District of Yerevan to be taken for State needs for town-planning purposes, having a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones. A special body, the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency (hereafter, the Agency) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects.
9.  On 7 September 2004 the applicants’ flat was valued upon the request of the Agency by a valuation organisation. The market value of the flat was found to be 16,350 United States dollars (USD).
10.  By a letter of 14 January 2005 the Agency informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 16,350 by an independent licensed organisation. An additional sum of USD 12,638.55 was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within five days.
11.  The applicants did not accept the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered.
12.  On an unspecified date the Agency lodged a claim against the applicants, seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their flat for State needs and to have them evicted.
13.  On 1 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the Agency’s claim, ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of USD 16,350.
14.  On 15 March 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal.
15.  On 30 March 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal.
16.  On 13 April 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, in which they argued, inter alia, that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by Article 28 of the Constitution.
17.  On 26 May 2005 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal.
18.  On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.
5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.
6.  At the material time the applicant was a managing director of a tour operator limited liability company, HTC Kft.
7.  On an unspecified date criminal investigations were opened against HTC Kft and another limited liability company on suspicion of bankruptcy fraud. On 8 September 2000 the Budapest VI/VII Police Department ordered the search of the applicant’s flat and vehicle, since there were grounds to believe that as the managing director of HTC Kft, he kept certain company documents at home.
8.  On 14 February 2007 the applicant was heard as suspect on charges of bankruptcy fraud.
9.  On 18 May 2007 the Budapest VI/VII District Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with bankruptcy fraud.
10.  The first hearing was held by the Pest Central District Court on 3 November 2009.
11.  On 21 April 2012 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant. The judgment became final on 1 August 2012.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kragujevac.
6.  The applicant was employed by “Društveno preduzeće Industrija mesa ‘Crvena zvezda’” Kragujevac (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.
7.  On 15 October 2002 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kragujevac opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 1079/02).
8.  The applicant duly submitted his claims for the payment of due salary arrears and related employment benefits.
9.  On 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 the Commercial Court accepted some of the applicant’s claims. Those decisions became final on an unspecified date.
10.  On 20 February 2009 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings. That decision was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 27 March 2009 (no. 21/09) and became final on 16 July 2009.
11.  On 26 February 2010 the debtor ceased to exist.
12.  The court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour on 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 remain only partly enforced to the present day.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Hässelby, Sweden.
6.  By a decision of 1 June 2004 the Tax Agency (Skatteverket), noting that the applicant ran two restaurants together with her husband, Mr Shibendra Dev (who also lodged an application before the Court; no. 7362/10), found that they should each declare half of the proceeds and the costs of that business. As the applicant, in her tax return, had not declared all her income and had, moreover, not declared it in the correct manner, the Agency revised upwards her income for 2002 (i.e. the taxation year 2003), finding her liable to pay tax on undeclared business income (inkomst av näringsverksamhet) amounting to 764,945 Swedish kronor (SEK; approximately 83,000 euros (EUR)). It also increased her liability to value-added tax (mervärdesskatt; “VAT”) for 2002 by SEK 379,365 (approximately EUR 41,000). Finally, as the information supplied by the applicant in her tax return was found to be incorrect and the revision had had to be made under a discretionary assessment procedure, given the business’s deficient accounting, the Agency ordered her to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg), amounting to 40% and 20%, respectively, of the increased income tax and VAT.
7.  Following the applicant’s appeal, the Tax Agency, on 18 March 2005, made an obligatory review of its decision but did not change it.
8.  On 10 January 2007 and 29 October 2008, respectively, the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) in Stockholm and the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm upheld the Tax Agency’s decision.
9.  By a decision of 20 October 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal.
10.  Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on 5 August 2005 in regard to the above conduct.
11.  By a judgment of 16 December 2008 the Stockholm District Court (tingsrätt) convicted the applicant of an aggravated bookkeeping offence (grovt bokföringsbrott). She was given a suspended sentence and ordered to perform 160 hours of community service. The offence concerned the same period as the above-mentioned tax decisions, that is, the year 2002. The District Court found that the bookkeeping of the restaurant business had been seriously deficient and that the applicant and her husband had been responsible for failing to account for considerable proceeds and VAT, which had involved large profits for them. In regard to the public prosecutor’s claim that the applicant was guilty also of an aggravated tax offence (grovt skattebrott), the court considered that it could not be ruled out that, as she claimed to have relied on her husband running the business properly and their accountant having entered the correct figures in her tax return, she had been unaware that her tax return contained false information. Thus, it had not been shown that she had intended to give incorrect information, for which reason the indictment was dismissed in this respect.
12.  The applicant did not appeal against the District Court’s judgment, which consequently acquired legal force on 8 January 2009.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pskov.
6.  From 5 January 2000 to 22 March 2001 the applicant worked at the Pskov Department of the Federal Debt Centre. On 22 March 2001 the Debt Centre terminated his employment due to its liquidation, failing to pay him certain compensation amounts. On various dates the domestic courts granted the applicant’s claims and awarded him compensation of salary arrears, indexation amounts, non-pecuniary damage and postal expenses. The particulars of the respective judgments may be summarized as follows:
Domestic court
Date of the judgment
Final on
Awarded amount, Russian roubles (RUB)
Justice of the Peace, Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov
27 June 2003
15 July 2003
20,634.50
Justice of the Peace, Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov
15 September 2003
15 October 2003
2,421
 
Pskov Town Court, Pskov Region
13 September 2004
28 September 2004
3,470
Pskov Town Court, Pskov Region
12 May 2005
24 May 2005
1,529.42
7.  The applicant submitted writs of execution in respect of the above judgments to the Ministry of Finance in 2003–2005. The writs were returned to him in September 2005. The applicant sought before the courts the clarifications as to the enforcement of the four judgments, but his claims were refused. He filed the writs anew with the Ministry of Finance in December 2006 and September 2009 and they were sent back to him without execution in June 2007 and December 2009 respectively.
8.  In 2010 the applicant claimed compensation for the lengthy non‑enforcement of the judgment of 27 June 2003 under the Federal Law no. 68-ФЗ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”, see paragraph 12 below). On 10 December 2010 the Pskov Regional Court granted his claim and awarded the applicant RUB 30,000 (approximately 730 euros (EUR)) for non‑enforcement of the judgment, and RUB 200 for legal expenses. These amounts were fully paid to him on 16 March 2011. The judgment of 27 June 2003 remained unenforced.
9.  In February 2012 the applicant again sent the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. The latter brought court proceedings seeking clarifications and amendment of the judgments, in the part related to the way of execution and rectification of calculation errors. By separate rulings of 29 March 2012 the Pskov Town Court and the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov amended the initial judgments as claimed.
10.   On 18 April 2012 the four initial judgments in the applicant’s favour were enforced in full.
5.  Mr İhsan Güler and Mr Sinan Uğur were born in 1964 and 1947 respectively and live in Ankara and İzmir respectively.
6.  At the relevant time they were active members and regional leaders of the Party for a Democratic Society (Demokratik Toplum Partisi (DTP)), which was subsequently dissolved by the Constitutional Court. The applicant Mr Güler, former mayor of the district of Başkale (Van), was at the relevant time the chairman of an association called KÜRT-DER (Kürt Demokrasi Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği – association for Kurdish culture, democracy and solidarity).
7.  On 21 August 2006 the applicants took part in a religious ceremony (mevlût)[1] on the premises of the DTP in Altındağ (Ankara), in which they paid tribute to three members of the PKK who had been killed by the security forces.
8.  The participants read out passages from the Koran and said prayers, and showed a film about the lives of the deceased. The DTP’s regional representative gave a short speech, which can be summarised as follows:
“Our fears and worries continue. People are still being killed. In such a context, we would like this mevlût to be a moment of peace and fraternity.”
9.  On 3 October 2006 the Muş public prosecutor’s office received an anonymous letter of denunciation, together with a CD containing a recording of the ceremony in question. The writer, who said that he had been a participant himself but had subsequently regretted it, explained that the ceremony had been held in memory of “the martyrs of the PKK”.
10.  Following an investigation by the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant Mr Güler was arrested and taken into police custody on 28 December 2006. He was released the next day.
11.  Both applicants were committed to stand trial before the Ankara Assize Court. In their defence they stated that they had taken part in the ceremony for the observance of their religious duties.
12.  In a judgment of 24 September 2008 the Ankara Assize Court, relying on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 on the prevention of terrorism, sentenced the two applicants to ten months’ imprisonment.
13.  In its judgment, the Assize Court observed, firstly, that the persons in whose memory the ceremony had been held were members of a terrorist organisation and that they had been killed by the security forces during an operation against that organisation. It also took the view that the choice of venue for the ceremony – the premises of a political party –, and the fact that the PKK flag had been spread over the tables and photos of members of the organisation had been displayed, contributed to raising serious doubts as to the actual reasons for the gathering that had been given by the applicants in their defence.
14.  Further to an appeal on points of law by the applicants, their conviction was upheld by a final judgment of the Court of Cassation on 8 March 2010. The applicants were imprisoned for the duration of their sentence.
...
6.  In 1998 the applicant’s property rights to a previously nationalised part of his late father’s land near Vilnius were restored. On 5 June 2002 the Vilnius Region Administration restored his rights – restitution in natura – to the remainder of the land measuring 0.53 hectares, situated in the village of Gineitiškės. This plot of land was then entered in the land registry in the applicant’s name.
7.  In January 2005, having discovered that the decision of 5 June 2002 was based on erroneous data prepared by a State-hired land surveyor and had possibly breached the rights of other former landowners, the General Prosecutor’s Office instituted administrative proceedings to have the applicant’s title to the plot annulled. The applicant was a third party to those proceedings and argued that the restoration process had been lawful, without, however, raising the question of an adequate compensation in the event that his title to the plot was extinguished. Shortly before the initiation of the case, the Vilnius Region Administration had admitted that its decision had been unlawful and had informed the applicant that it needed to rectify the error; however, it appears that the latter had disagreed.
8.  On 8 September 2005 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the prosecutor’s complaint. However, on 12 December 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court remitted the case for re-examination.
9.  On 20 April 2006 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the claim and annulled the decision of 5 June 2002. Finally, on 15 January 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the lower court. The courts established that the original plot of land to which the applicant had ownership rights was actually situated in another, albeit nearby, area of Gilužiai village. Thus, the return of the plot in 2002 was declared unlawful as it breached the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property.
10.  Following the courts’ decisions, the plot of land was taken away from the applicant and returned to the State. No compensation was awarded to the applicant. However, he reserved the right to have his ownership rights restored.
11.  By a decision of 2 February 2009 the Vilnius Region Administration restored the applicant’s ownership rights in natura by granting a new plot of land measuring 0.53 hectares in Gilužiai village.